Minutes City of Monona Plan Commission Monday October 8, 2018 The meeting of the City of Monona Plan Commission was called to order (7:00 pm). Present: Alder Nancy Moore (Chair), Alder Chad Speight, Mr. Chris Homburg, Mr. Brian Holmquist, Mr. Grif Dorschel, Mr. Rob Stein, Ms. Kathy Thomas, and Ms. Susan Fox Also Present: Interim City Planner Kory Anderson and City Planning Assistant Ciara Miller. Approval of Minutes Appearances A motion by Mr. Holmquist, seconded by Mr. Dorschel, to approve the minutes of September 10, 2018 carried with corrections. There were no appearances. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. New Business A. Public Hearing on Request by Property Owner Jeanine Landsinger, Represented by Noa Prieve, Williamson Surveying, and Troy Mayne, Attorney for DeWitt Ross, for Approval of a 3-Lot Certified Survey Map (CSM) to Divide Lot 5 of the South Towne Assessor s Plat, the Shopko Lot at 2101 W Broadway, into Three Separate Parcels. (Case No. 2-003-2017) Troy Mayne, attorney for DeWitt Ross was present on behalf of Property Owner Jeanine Landsinger to present the proposed Certified Survey Map at 2101 W Broadway. This same CSM was submitted and approved by the Monona Plan Commission in March of 2017. CSMs must be filed with the Dane County Register of Deeds within 12 months of City approval. The property owner did not file the 2017 approved CSM within that time frame, and so the applicant is back before the Commission at this meeting to seek approval a second time. When the CSM was approved in 2017, it was approved with six conditions. Mr. Mayne submitted a cover letter with the application materials to address the conditions. They feel that all of the conditions are still relevant and important. Regarding condition number three, an easement on Lot 3 for cross access benefiting Lots 1 and 2, the applicant has submitted a draft Cross Access Easement Agreement with the application materials. Condition six required an easement for stormwater utilities across all lots shall be provided to Staff for review and approval. The applicant and Mr. Mayne requested more information on the specifics of this easement. The motivation for the new CSM is the same as it was in 2017. The north portion of the parking lot is currently underutilized, and the owner and tenant feel that bringing in an out-lot development will help generate traffic trips and revitalize the area. 1
B. Consideration of Action on Request by Property Owner Jeanine Landsinger, Represented by Noa Prieve, Williamson Surveying, and Troy Mayne, Attorney for DeWitt Ross, for Approval of a 3-Lot Certified Survey Map (CSM) to Divide Lot 5 of the South Towne Assessor s Plat, the Shopko Lot at 2101 W Broadway, into Three Separate Parcels. (Case No. 2-003-2017) Mr. Homburg asked Mr. Mayne to clarify what has changed in this CSM as Mr. Mayne described the request as substantially the same. The change was very minor; the address for the surveyor who prepared the CSM has changed. Mr. Homburg commented further on Mr. Mayne s question about condition six. Mr. Homburg pointed out on the map that most of Lot 3 drains into Lot 1 and some drains to lot two. So he suggests placing the storm water easement near the inlet located near the center of lot 1. Same for lot two. This is a precaution because in the future the three lots may have three different owners and we want to be sure that there is a mechanism in place that allows for proper storm water management. Alder Speight asked for clarification about the existing and planned use of what is described as Lot 3 in the CSM. Mr. Mayne clarified that it is currently parking and it will remain parking for the Shopko business in the new CSM. Alder Speight also asked the Commission for clarification regarding future development requirements to meet storm water and parking standards. Mr. Homburg stated that when this proposal was first brought to the Commission in 2017, they agreed with the applicant that there was excess parking on this site so the new lots are appropriate. It was further clarified that the new lot development will need to meet current standards for stormwater and parking. A motion by Mr. Homburg, seconded by Mr. Dorschel, for approval of a 3-Lot Certified Survey map (CSM) to divide lot 5 of the South Towne Assessor s plat at 2101 W Broadway, as proposed, according to Section 14-1-14 of the Monona Municipal Code of Ordinances and Sec. 236.34 Wis. Stats. with the following conditions of approval: 1. Public Works Committee review is required prior to recording the CSM 2. City Council review and approval is required prior to recording the CSM. 3. An easement for cross access on Lot 3 benefiting Lots 1 and 2 shall be provided to staff for review and approval prior to recording the CSM. 4. Future development on Lots 1 and 2 shall meet the minimum requirements for site plan review as required by all applicable Monona Municipal Ordinances. 5. The label on the submitted CMS reading West Broadway shall be revised to read West Broadway Frontage Road. 6. An easement for stormwater utilities across all lots shall be provided to Staff for review and approval. The motion carried. 2
C. Public Hearing on Request by Zach and Brooke Kraus, 700 Interlake Drive for Approval of Private Compensatory Flood Storage on Public Property Along Interlake Drive. Zach Kraus is the property owner at 700 Interlake Drive, a property which he recently purchased and is remodeling. The property is in the Flood Storage District, meaning the property must also meet the flood plain zoning ordinance standards in addition to the standards of the zoning ordinance. The property owners are raising the home out of the flood zone, but for every square foot of fill they must compensate elsewhere in the flood storage district so there is no net loss in floodwater storage. The result of raising the home means that Mr. Kraus must remove 1 5 of fill from his backyard to make up for the new infill. What makes the situation particularly unique, according to Mr. Kraus, is that his property along with several neighboring properties have constructed an earthen berm along the shoreline to protect their block of properties from flooding. Mr. Kraus is concerned that in order to meet the storage requirements on his property, he would have to remove or alter the berm significantly enough that it would impact the integrity of the berm, exposing the neighboring properties to risk in the event of flooding. Mr. Kraus is proposing to create a bio-retention basin in the public open space located across the street from his property. With this proposal, the floodwater would still be stored within the same floodplain. As part of the proposed arrangement, Mr. Kraus would be responsible for the cost of engineering, design, and maintenance. D. Prehearing Conference on Request by Zach and Brooke Kraus, 700 Interlake Drive for Approval of Private Compensatory Flood Storage on Public Property Along Interlake Drive. Interim Planner, Kory Anderson, summarized his staff report. After the materials were submitted, Staff found out that the open space across the street is actually a public park owned by Dane County. Approval for this plan would require approval by Monona Department of Public Works, Parks Commission, and Dane County. The Department of Public Works Director informed Staff that a future road project is planned in this area and they would like to keep options available and do not recommend approval. Planner Kory acknowledges the unique situation but Staff recommendation is not for approval. Mr. Homburg asked Mr. Anderson what authority the Plan Commission has to rule on this subject. The Plan Commission does not have the authority to grant permission, but evaluated alternative options that the property owner may choose to pursue. Mr. Homburg suggested that the home could be raised on piers, which should eliminate the need to compensate for floodwater storage on the property since it wouldn t be removing any storage. Alternatively, perhaps the berm could be modified to be more wall-like than mound-like. If the wall was thinner then the volume that the mound is taking up would become flood storage for the site. Mr. Speight agreed that it is unlikely that park land would get the necessary approval for private use. Which means the homeowner will need to find a creative approach to storing floodwater on site. Mr. Speight was also concerned that allowing private development of public land and off-site floodwater storage may set a bad precedence for the neighborhood and the City. 3
Reports of Staff and Commission Members A. Updates and Discussion Regarding Sign Code Revisions Vandewalle was present to discuss the new Monona Sign Ordinance. The Plan Commission established a Sign Code Sub-Committee who met several times with Staff and the consultants to discuss the new ordinance. The draft presented to the commission tonight is the product that has come out of the sub-committee meeting. Mike Slavney and Ben Rohr were present to review the ordinance; the Commission discussion of changes to the draft code are summarized below: Regarding Pylon Signs, it was Mr. Slavney s goal to not have to create a pylon overlay district map but rather be able to create a description of the district where a map wouldn t be necessary. After discussion, specifically regarding Royal Avenue properties, it was decided that the overlay map would allow for the most accurate interpretation of the Commission s intentions for the placement of pylon signs in Monona. There was discussion whether blade and suspended signs should allow for lighting or if they should be ambient only. Commission agreed that lighting may be appropriate for locations open after dark. Menu Board Signs require City Staff approval but Order Board Signs will require Plan Commission approval for each new sign. In Table Three Sign Category A (City-Required Sign Category) which included address signs, building management identification signs, on-site warning signs, and on-site directional signs, the commission discussed alternative names for the category. The concern was that a reader may misinterpret the intention of the category and presume that it means all properties must have these signs. Mr. Slavney stated he felt this was the best title, and that these signs can be required in some cases by the Commission if there are safety concerns. But the Commission felt that the approver should be listed as Plan Commission not Staff because these types of signs are reviewed the Plan Commission during site review/sign permit review anyways. There was extensive conversation regarding the regulation of flags. If they are to be considered signs, is a maximum of three appropriate? The commission agreed to limit one flag of the three allowed to contain a commercial message, colors, or logo. The commission also wanted to make clear that professional sports teams flags or flags of another nation may be flown and are not considered a commercial message. For on-site directional and warning signs, the commission felt that post more accurately reflected the mounting they would expect to see rather than pole. Signs that move ( feather ) will not be allowed because they are a distraction and can be unattractive. Allowing sandwich boards in the new ordinance is something new. Some commission members felt that sandwich boards were unattractive and shouldn t be allowed since there are wall mounted alternatives they could also use. The 4
commission should discuss further to reach an agreement on sandwich board signs as the topic switched before a clear decision was made. The Commission discussed whether additional signage should be permitted where there is high pedestrian traffic, perhaps along a bike path or water corridor. The Plan Commission Minutes Draft minutes subject to Approval 5 Commission agreed to allow business along the Yahara River to apply for additional signage, and any other requests can be handled by the Commission on a case-by-case basis without necessarily establishing an ordinance for it. Monona s Right-of-Way varies throughout the City. Vandewalle suggested establishing a minimum setback distance, rather than using R-O-W as the standard for yard signs. Ciara informed the commission that she discussed the setback distance with the department heads at the staff meeting earlier that week. Initial input from Staff indicated that the new setback distance was more easily enforceable since it will have a standard applied to all properties regardless of what street they live on. Specifically regarding yard signs, there was discussion if only allowing one sign is adequate. It was expressed that the Commission shouldn t create a standard it is not prepared to enforce. There was clarification that this does not include political/campaign signs. Mr. Slavney also commented that this is the standard he sees in most communities. The commission discussed the size limitations on yard signs. Mr. Slavney commented that the standard used in the table is what he has measured and believe to be the standard sign size. Upcoming Meetings November 12, 2018, December 10th, 2018. B. Plan Commission Requests for Information Concerning Development Projects. Mr. Homburg wants to make sure that the ordinance is referenced in the Staff reports and motions. Chair Moore also mentioned that at a recent workshop she attended it was suggested that our permit application include language informing the applicant that a representative shall be at the meeting or the application may be denied. Adjournment A motion by Mr. Dorschel, seconded by Mr. Holmquist, to adjourn carried. (8:59pm). Respectfully Submitted by: Ciara Miller, City Planning Assistant 5